The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum At what point?

Very interesting article - thanks for the link. I just read it, and definitely believe it is something I hope to revisit and use as a "brainstorming" tool as I continue to study and consider a positive statement of the role of civil gov't. Thanks again.

That being said, while I agree that our nation is now secular (in a sense), I do affirm a unity of a state and its people throughout its history. Accordingly, as a state (and, even more importantly, people), our responsibilities aren't limited to our current apparent secularism, but also are regulated by our prior Christianity insofar as we were previously a colony of a Christian nation, with Christian laws, covenants, etc. In other words, while I agree that, if we were to consider our nation and its people today independent of its history, it could properly be understood to be secular. The problem is this: it is improper to consider it independent of its history. When our history is considered, we discover that there is a better way to describe our nation than secular, namly, apostate. So, the question is this: what is a Christian's role in an apostate nation. My suggestion is that a Christian must testify against it, not swear oaths to defend it.

Changing gears a little, pragmatism doesn't have the priority in a Christian's thought over God's law and plain revealed truth. People who oppose God's law being enforced in a modern nation universally appeal to pragmatism (i.e., it can't work, it won't work, it is unreasonable, how can it ever happen, it failed everytime attempted in history, etc.). I suppose if I were a pragmatist, I would also stop living for Christ because so many people have suffered, died, failed at accomplishing their Christian goals, etc. by trying to live such a life. Pragmatically speaking, it just makes sense to deny Him in our personal life as well. Why not? We deny believe we should deny Him in the civil realm, right? Why not our personal, too?

Sincerely,
John